Google's largest advocates were the more technically inclined. The
early adopters and the folks who either made technical decisions or
heavily influenced those that did.

This was especially true of Google Talk, which brought the first
meaningful interoperable Instant Messaging to the masses, unlike MSN,
Yahoo, ICQ, AIM, and several other proprietary networks. This was the
driving force to get our organizations to set up XMPP servers, because,
hey, it'll interoperate with Google, and we all know Google does the
right thing.

Now we're eating our words.

The masses that use Google Talk the same way as they used AIM or Skype
or Facebook chat don't care; they were already using the network they
started with. Instead, it's the technical folks, and those who listened
to us, that are screwed over. Like, oh, our employers.

It was never about "using a single client" -- it was about using a
single, universal identifier (not unlike your email address) that let
anyone get in touch with you, without having to juggle half a dozen
separate logins. With that, clients competed on features, rather than
network-effected lockin.

We consequently built our Instant Messaging systems under the assumption
that it would be federated, and now we find ourselves suddenly unable to
communicate with an increasing part of our contact lists simply becase
they clicked "okay" when Google prompted them to "upgrade" to Hangouts.
Bang, they're now forced inside Google's walled garden, and all
non-google contacts are gone.

If you're going to exist in a walled garden, why not just continue using
Facebook? Google is now trying to beat Facebook at its own game, and in
doing so, is becoming the very enemy it once decried.